(1.) The matter was taken up for further hearing pursuant to the order date 13/3/2020.
(2.) Mr. Parthasarathi Sengupta, Ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondent argued as follows:
(3.) The respondent have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India State Bank Officers' Federation v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 151 on the point that malice cannot be urged unless the person alleged against whom it is alleged, is impleaded in a personal capacity, in the pleadings. The said decision was concerned with a policy decision of the Bank and it was alleged that the Board of Directors framed the policy only to favour the respondent no. 4 and 5. It is in that context that the Supreme Court had held that the CMD and the directors of the Bank ought to have been made parties to the proceedings. In the case at hand malicious and/or mala fide conduct is evident from the documents and the manner in which the petitioner was dismissed from service. It has not been argued or contended by BBNUL the termination and process thereof was erroneous or incorrect on the contrary it is sought to be justified and asserted.